On 04 Apr 2004 16:06:04 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Indirectly, yes. NASA took over DC-XA when SDIO cancelled it. When it came
time for the next phase, which would have been DC-Y. NASA re-competed the
contract under the name X-33 rather than sole-sourcing it to MDAC.
Procurement law sets out specific circumstances under which sole-sourcing
is allowed (small contracts or lack of other suppliers in the market), and
the circumstances of DC-X did not fit: the contract was too large and there
were other suppliers in the market. Had NASA sole-sourced it anyway, it
would have invited legal challenges from other potential suppliers and a
lot of scrutiny from Congress. MDAC bid on the re-competed contract but
lost to LockMart. We can debate the relative merits of the X-33 competitors
(personally I preferred MDAC and Rockwell's designs over LockMart's), but
not the necessity of re-competing the contract.

The X-33 RFP called for an _innovative_ vehicle, but the MDAC bid the
DC-Y and RI bid what was essentially a modernized Orbiter. Nothing
new in either of them. At least Lockheed-Martin bid something
innovative, with the aerospike engine on a lifting body. It deserved
to win and the other two didn't.

When NASA (or any other government agency) wants a specific company or
specific proposal to win the competitive bid process, it writes the
RFP to be sure that happens. It doesn't specify "innovative" for a
warmed-over SDIO concept or an Orbiter retread.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer